As you may have heard, there’s a bit of an uprising going on in Egypt, where citizens are organizing mass protests and gatherings to express their displeasure with the current government.

In an effort to quell the fire fueled by websites like Twitter and Facebook, the Egyptian government flipped the off switch on the internet for the entire country, as well as disabling SMS. This takes things even further than normal tactics of blocking access to specific sites.

While the internet and mobile services are hobbled, phone lines may still be operational, and various companies have stepped up to offer dial-up internet access so that citizens can continue to use internet services to send news out and communicate with each other to further organize.

Lest you start to wonder why this matters to you, someone reading in the US, consider a bill set to be vote on later this year. Senators Lieberman and Collins introduced the ‘Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act’ (PCNAA) bill, which would allow the US government to shut off access to the internet, and keep it offline indefinitely, without judicial oversight. {BoingBoing}

While it’s difficult for most people to imagine not being able to access the internet, or for businesses to imagine a total shutdown of US online commerce, not too long ago the same things may have been difficult for people in Egypt to imagine.

Keep that 56k modem handy.

This Steve Madden shoe is already the subject of a lawsuit, but that could just be the beginning once a new copyright law for fashion is enacted.

The opposing argument has always been that a today’s designers aren’t generating completely unique pieces anyway-drawing inspiration from many different places.

According to Johanna Blakely, the Deputy Director of the Norman Lear Center (a media-focused think tank at the University of Southern California), “Designers pore over vintage magazines and patterns and visit museum archives in order to find inspiration for the next season’s look, cherry picking design elements that feel fresh and in line with the current zeitgeist. It’s a refreshingly open process unhindered by legal consultations. Those archives could become battlefields where litigants try to find evidence to support their assertion that a design is or is not unique. It is worrisome that powerful people may attempt to limit access to particularly rich collections of design history and some unscrupulous types may destroy or hide rare materials that prove that their new design isn’t as unique as they claim. But just because copying is legal doesn’t mean it’s acceptable. In order to succeed, designers have to develop a signature style — a look that everyone will instantly recognize as theirs. Designers who have reputations as innovators don’t want to be accused of copying, so they have a strong incentive to come up with something new every season that’s unique to them and their signature style.” {Tech Dirt}

We couldn’t agree more. The fashion industry has always “innovated creatively” without copyrights and many hugely popular chains like H&M and Forever 21 have succeeded by imitating haute couture designs minus the runway price tag.

For now, designer labels and logos are legally protected through trademark law, however the shape and fit of the design are not. This gives retailers like Steve Madden (notorious for his almost identical shoe knockoffs) free-reign to copy, copy and copy some more. Admittedly, consumers on a budget thrive on stores like these because they care less about the name brand and more about being stylish and trendy. That doesn’t include consumers who can afford designer items, but just aren’t interested enough to pay designer prices for the style.

The breaking news is that Senator Charles Schumer recently submitted a revised copy of a bill called the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act (the original was rejected a couple of years ago), supported by the AAFA (American Apparel and Footwear Association) and CFDA (Council of Fashion Designers of America). The Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously passed it yesterday, which clears the way for a vote that would make it law. {NY Mag}

We aren’t sure where it will go once heard by Congress but the fashion community is abuzz about what this could mean for fashion as we know it today. What do you think about granting designers rights to everything they design?